Word formation processes

This video lecture is a part of the course 'An Introduction to English Linguistics' at the University of Neuchâtel. This is session 4, in which I discuss morphological word formation processes.

[myworkbackup]

2021. Still valuable. Thank you professor!

[elena]

I have been taught that there are 12 word formation processes:
1) Coining
2) Adoption of Brand Names
3) Onomatopoeia
4) Borrowing
5) Affixation
6) Clipping
7) Blending
8) Reduplication
9) Acronyms
10) Backformation
11) Conversion
12) Compounding

[tonymarin]

You helped me understand this topic very easily during quarantine! Great job and thank you!

[SupaThePink]

I'm no linguist, but I would argue that things like "silk tie" and "aluminum foil" do not break the compound stress rule because they are not compounds at all. I would say that "silk tie" are two words where each performs a specific function. "Tie" is a noun which informs us of what we are talking about (a tie) and "silk" acts as an adjective here. It informs us of what type of tie we are referring to specifically.

This may, however, just be a disagreement over the definition of what a word is. I would say that "Boston Marathon, " though functioning as one unit to refer to a specific event, is actually made up of two words, where "marathon" tells us what we are talking about and "Boston" specifies which marathon we are referring to in particular.

Anyway, nice videos. Keep up the great work.

[wanderingwonderer]

@ 31:37

You can't have 'goap' as a blend but there're no rules which says you can't have 'shoat'. So, you can either call it 'geep' or 'shoat' : )

[mufidosss]

Thanks very much it was helpful and interesting.

[zahideduvan]

your videos are always useful for me thank you!

[emadalihassan]

In your lessons about morphological productive I didn't understand the meaning of words when you add suffixes on it .

[HerrHein]

So undesirability can be split up into: {un-} + {desire} + {-able} + {-ty}, right?

Therefore:
1. {desire} + {-able} = denominal Adjectivecompound using Suffixation.

2. {desirable} + {-ty} = deadjectivial Nouncompund using Suffixation.

3. {un-} + {desirability} = Negation using Prefixiation.

In sum, this compound is a negated nominal compound.

Is that correct? Are there better ways to describe the individual processes of compounding?

[studylit]

Thank you for the beautiful lecture .❤️

[rafiasarwat]

it was very easy and informative lecture.

[GreeKurdChannelMilan]

how about the word "Youtuber" can you make a short analyze about which term could describe?

[יעקבהמודי]

This was so useful thank you! I wrote chickagator

[immortalsongs]

Thank you, I now understand this :) Apart from that, do you think the word 'thank you' is a compounding ?

[muslimin]

Nice explanation. Could you please help me. the explanation of the historical changes of productivity. Thank you.

[agabryla]

A comment I'd like to make is that in "linguist" there are two syllables not three.../liŋg-wist/. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong, or if I've misunderstood your point somewhere). I do like your videos, warm greetings!

[animefan]

+Martin Hilpert If one of the words you are blending begins with a vowel sound, how would the technique that you showed here change?

[Amethisko]

An observation: I understand that this is INTRODUCTION to linguistics, so therefore you do not go into greater detail when discussing these. However I still need to ask - are you familiar with the Cognitive Onomasiological Theory (Štekauer, 1996, 1998, 2001) ?

It is a part of Word Formation realm and greatly explains not only Conversion (which is my main point here, as it is not simply "changing the word class of a word") but most (all) other Word Formation processes and makes it possible to group them together, without the need for the division between Compounding, Affixation, Blending etc.. The starting point is a semantic analysis of extralinguistic reality, rather than analysis of an actual word as seen in the Semasiological approach. Please bear in mind I am not an advanced student, rather a beginner, but already I can see the wide possible implications of this theory, where the main focus lies on the act of naming - and most importantly - the speaker/coiner himself. A word is not formed by itself, and human input plays a huge role - this concept is ignored by vast majority of mainstream linguists, which is a shame. Needless to say, all the other morphological, lexical and phonological processes and rules are still valid and applicable (and necessary of course).

 Still, thank you for all the videos on your channel - especially concerning morphology and word formation. Very helpful for all the beginners out there :)

[Nika-edoo]

I think that jumping been is some kind of bean with a worm in it which makes it look like it's jumping when the worm is moving inside. At least that's what it was originally ;)

[laurencedam]

Thank you so much for these highly structured video.I want to ask about how many types of conversion we have?